alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted for Union
National Bancorp's Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2000 and is
qualified in it's entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          61,227
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,392
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,967
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    308,550
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          95,432
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,220,945
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,769,706
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,324,978
<SHORT-TERM>                                   127,101
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,218
<LONG-TERM>                                    149,634
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,043
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,769,706
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 48,782
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               12,191
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   389
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                61,363
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              21,940
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,798
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           32,565
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,296
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 31,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,721
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,584
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.87
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.51
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,551
<LOANS-PAST>                                       710
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,760
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 29,800
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,068
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,406
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,251
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,209
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            12,841
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            368


</TABLE>
### §286y. Promoting conditions for exchange rate stability

(a) In order to help assure that the resources provided under section 286e–1i of this title are used to support pro-growth policies which will help establish the economic conditions necessary for more appropriate financial and exchange rate alignment and stability, it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Treasury shall—

(1) in consultation with the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative, initiate discussions with other countries regarding the economic dislocations which result from structural exchange rate imbalances; and

(2) instruct the United States Executive Director of the Fund to work for adoption of policies in the Fund, both within the framework of article IV (of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund) consultations and with respect to the conditions associated with Fund-supported balance of payments adjustments programs, which promote conditions contributing to the stability of exchange rates and avoid the manipulation of exchange rates between major currencies. Among other initiatives, the Secretary of the Treasury shall propose strengthening the article IV consultation procedures of the Fund to attempt to ensure that countries which are artificially maintaining undervalued or overvalued rates of exchange agree to adopt market determined exchange rates.

(b) In determining his vote on extensions of assistance to any Fund borrower, the United States Executive Director of the Fund shall take into account whether such borrower's policies are consistent with the requirements of article IV of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §40, as added Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title VIII, §801], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1267.)
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

                       Chase Mortgage Finance Corporation,
                       Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
                          Series 2005-S1 (the "Trust")

I, Jerome A. Cipponeri, President of Chase Mortgage Finance Corporation, the
depositor of assets into the above-referenced Trust, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
      8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
      periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the Trust;

2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
      does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
      a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
      circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of
      the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
      to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
      servicing agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these
      reports;

4.    Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in
      this annual report and required to be delivered to the trustee in
      accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, and
      except as disclosed in this annual report, the servicer has fulfilled its
      obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement; and

5.    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
      servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
      report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a
      review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
      Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and
      servicing agreement, that is included in these reports.


Date:    March 27, 2006


      /s/ Jerome A. Cipponeri
---------------------------------------------
Name:     Jerome A. Cipponeri
Title:    President
Company:  Chase Mortgage Finance Corporation
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.5





             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Audit Committee and Board of Directors
Origen Financial, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion about Origen Financial, Inc. and its
subsidiaries compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005 included
in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for Origen
Financial, Inc.'s compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about Origen Financial, Inc.'s compliance
with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on Origen Financial, Inc.'s compliance with the minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Origen Financial, Inc. and
subsidiaries complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material
respects.

/S/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Southfield, Michigan
February 13, 2006
#### Peter Boxberger *v.*Edward Scott.

1. Pleading and *evidence—promissory note under the common counts.*Where the execution of a promissory note is proved, it is sufficient evidence to authorize a recovery under the common money counts, without proof of a consideration. *

2. Where there is a variance between a promissory note offered in evidence, and the one described in a special count of the declaration, it is sufficient evi*478dence, upon proof of its execution, to authorize a recovery under the common counts, and the fact that it is not the same note described in the special count does not affect its admissibility as evidence under the common counts.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery county; the Hon. Horatio M. Vandeveer, Judge, presiding.

Mr. B. F. Burnett, for the appellant.

Mr. Wm. Prescott, for the appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was assumpsit, by appellee against appellant. The declaration contained a special count on a promissory note, and the common money counts. Appellant pleaded *non assumpsit;*and the cause, by agreement of parties, was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. Appellee proved the execution of a promissory note by appellant to himself, and the court, over appellant’s objection, admitted it in evidence; and, this being all the evidence, the court thereupon gave judgment in favor of appellee and against appellant for $360.70—the amount due upon the note for principal and interest.

The only question attempted to be raised is, whether the court erred in admitting the promissory note in evidence.

There was a material variance between the promissory note given in evidence and that described in the first count; but we fail to discover any valid objection to the admissibility of the evidence under the common money counts. The execution of the promissory note having been first proved, it was sufficient evidence to authorize a recovery, under these counts, without proof of a consideration. *Nickerson et al.*v. *Sheldon,*33 Ill. 372; *Childs*v. *Fischer,*52 id. 205.

Nor does the fact that the promissory note is not the same that is described in the special count, affect its admissibility as evidence under the common money counts. *The Peoria*
      *479
      *and Oquawka Railroad Company*v. *Neill,*16 Ill. 269; *Lane et al.*v. *Adams,*19 id. 167; *Gilmore, imp. etc.*v. *Nowland,*26 id. 200.

This case ought to have been affirmed, solely on the ground that appellant failed to comply with the rule of the court in regard to making abstracts; but, inasmuch as the record is very short, and but a single point, involving no controversy of fact, is presented, we have thought the omission may have been the result of inadvertence, and have, in consequence, considered the case upon its merits.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
### §278b. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–426, title VII, §701(b), Oct. 7, 1978, 92 Stat. 991

Section, act June 28, 1944, ch. 294, title I, 58 Stat. 402, related to a report to Congress of the operation and work of the laboratory, including the statement of the receipts and expenditures, such a report to cover a fiscal year period ending on June 30 of the calendar year immediately preceding the convening of each such session. Similar provisions were contained in the following prior acts:

July 1, 1943, ch. 182, title I, 57 Stat. 277.

July 2, 1942, ch. 472, title I, 56 Stat. 474.

June 28, 1941, ch. 258, title I, 55 Stat. 271.

May 14, 1940, ch. 189, title I, 54 Stat. 187.

June 29, 1939, ch. 248, 53 Stat. 891.

Apr. 27, 1938, ch. 180, title I, 52 Stat. 253.

June 16, 1937, ch. 359, title I, 50 Stat. 267.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60457 Summary Calendar

JOSE DAVID UMANZOR HERNANDEZ , Petitioner

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR , U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A216 075 168

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose David Umanzor Hernandez, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge denying his applications for withholding of r emoval and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s l egal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact , including an alien’s eligibility for withholding of removal and

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 14, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60457 Document: 00514956842 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2019N o. 18

- 60457

2 CAT protection, for substantial evidence. Milat v. H older , 755 F.3d 354, 359 (5th Cir. 2014) ; Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). According to Hernandez , the BIA erred in determining that his proffered social group consisting of imputed MS

- 13 gang members was not cognizable. However, he has abandoned that claim by failing to brief any argument challenging the BIA’s conclusion that his claim ed particular social group was foreclosed by Matter of E

- A

- G, 24 I & N. Dec. 59 1 (BIA 2008) , holding that such a group was not cognizable. See Soad jede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that issues not argued by an alien seeking review of a BIA decision are deemed abandoned); see also Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993) . Even were that not so, the BIA’s determination that Hernandez’ s request for withholding of removal was not based on fear of persecution related to membership in a cognizable particular social group was supported by substantial evidence

. See Orellana

- Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511, 519

- 22 (5th Cir. 2012) ; see also Chen , 470 F.3d at 1134

. Substantial record evidence likewise supports the BIA’s finding that Hernandez is not eligible for CAT relief because he has not shown that the Salvadoran government would torture him or acquiesce i n his being subject to

torture. See Morales v. Sessions , 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017) ; see also Garcia v. Holder , 756 F.3d 885, 892 (5th Cir. 2014) ; Chen , 470 F.3d at 1134

. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. Case: 18-60457 Document: 00514956842 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-20-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-12-1999
<CASH>                                         918,008
<SECURITIES>                                10,508,008
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,617,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,219,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,646,000
<PP&E>                                      11,083,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,809,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,756,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,551,000
<BONDS>                                      1,607,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       141,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,615,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,756,000
<SALES>                                      4,588,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,838,000
<CGS>                                        3,644,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,644,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,504,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             361,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             51,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
498 P.2d 673

#### JUAN TAFOYA LAND GRANT by Its Board of Directors, David Martinez, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Serafin BACA et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 9403.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 30, 1972.

Casados & McBride, Albuquerque, for appellant Serafin Baca.

Harold M. Morgan, Albuquerque, for other appellants.

Standley, Witt & Quinn, Santa Fe, amicus curiae.

Edward J. Apodaca, Albuquerque, for appellees.

OPINION

McMANUS, Justice.

On December 22, 1969, suit was filed in the District Court of Valencia County by plaintiffs herein, praying for a declaratory judgment that would determine the legal ownership status of the Juan Tafoya Land Grant. The complaint further requested a ratification of previous actions of the Board of Trustees of said Grant and a request for ratification of certain rules for governing the Grant. Judgment was entered against all of the defendants granting the relief prayed for and also determining the ownership of the Grant. Subsequently, the court approved the proposed rules for the governing of the Grant. Serafin Baca, one of the defendants, appealed from the judgment of the trial court.

While there were two points preferred for appeal, it will only be necessary to discuss the second point. It is as follows:

> “The rules approved by the District Court for the governing of the Grant are void and of no force and effect for the reason that the judgment on which they are founded is void for the reason that the court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.”

Appellants, by virtue of this point, state that all of the land to which title is sought is situate in either Sandoval or McKinley Counties, and not in Valencia County. Section 21-5-1 (d) (1), N.M.S.A. (1953 Comp.), reads as follows:

> “When lands or any interest in lands are the object of any suit in whole or in part, such suit shall be brought in the county where the land or any portion thereof is situate.”

Appellees infer that a portion of the land involved lies in Valencia County. The record before us does not so indicate. Inasmuch as the lands or any portion thereof subject to this suit were not shown to be situate in Valencia County the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter. We take notice of the brief Amicus Curiae filed herein. See Atler v. Stolz, 38 N.M. 529, 37 P.2d 243 (1934); Catron v. Gallup Fire Brick Co. et al., 34 N.M. 45, 277 P. 32 (1929); Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Candelaria, 403 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1968).

*787The judgment of the trial court is remanded to the trial court for a dismissal of the action, without prejudice to the institution of a new suit in the proper county as the parties may deem advisable.

It is so ordered.

COMPTON, C. J., and MONTOYA, J., concur.
#### Sophie Capp, Respondent, v. Meyer Jackson, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Century Properties Fund XX 1998 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified 
in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000736909
<NAME> CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XX
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998   
<CASH>                                           8,191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          49,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,421   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,104   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         31,386     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,015)    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,104    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,286    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,520    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 628    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       138     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.18<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>